Spit sabotaged, Goering releieved

[PE_Tihi]

'I hate Spits!'- that's a sentence I heard again and again. It is the Bf pilots, of course, who have been saying it, but this newest version 4.10 'll make them sigh with relief, I am sure. Short time ago, on a Russian server a Bf flier starts an usual spitting on the Spit as being overclocked until a Russian countryman tells him 'Better take a look at these Russian planes of ours.'

Quite true what he said, of course. It is the La's and 185's that have been heavily overblown in climb and turn rate, not the Spit. Spit has the very suspiciously strong flaps which wouldn't break at speeds as high as 370 km/h- but that is in common with all the other planes in the game. Moreover, real Spits had a 5 minute limit to the use of WEP, because of the feared (it did happen sometimes) engine bearings damage, if used longer. This has no representation in the game.
That closes the list of the inaccuracies of the Spit FM I know about; if someone knows of any additional ones, I would be grateful.

Speeds, climb and turn rates are accurate as far as i know. I suspect, even, the turn rates of the 8 and later models has been spoiled a little bit, but I cannot say for sure.
Now, not being able to put the game plane performance in question, the Spit-hating creators of the 4.10 release literally sabotage the Spit's flying qualities.

In 4.10 the Spit has been made marginally stable about the yaw and pitch axes. Any fast stick movement and the plane is wallowing in the sky. The nose oscillates merrily around anything you may be aiming at, and hitting anything demands loads of luck. If brought to a stagnation in a verical climb, the plane has no naturally stable tendency to drop the nose, but it falls like a leaf showing almost indifferent static stabillity.

The plane behaves as if it's tail surfaces have been halved compared to the 4.09.
NO OTHER plane in the game shows such instabillity. The FM of NO OTHER plane has ever been touched significantly from DT, only the Spitfire's .

If DS ever thought about correcting the maximum lift of the Bf, which does seem to be a nice bit lower than the real one(especially for the 109E), I do not imagine they would ever get the permission to do it. That would change how the Bf-s compares with the russian planes, too.
What makes the Spit hating so laughable- Luftwaffles seem unaware their own planes have been spoiled, but think the Spit has been improved. Now Oleg lets them spoil the Spit too, that makes the Russian delta-dervesina high-tec look even better.:)

The trouble with the Spit is - it really has been a great plane, never needing any of the Oleg's 'Keep-the-sides-even' help. Russian fighters , weighing 3.5 tons to the German 2.5 at the war's beginning, did, though. Why he boosted the quite adequate Russian late war planes heavily, too- that is something to ask Oleg about. Interestingly, La-s have never been hated that much by the Luftwaffe fans as the Spits.

The Bf and the Spit have been designed at roughly the same time, but the Spit has been designed around a 1000 HP engine and the Bf around a 700 HP one. Accordingly, the Bf is quite a bit smaller, and in spite of the genial details like HP automatic slats, the arrival of the powerful DB-600 series engines made the Bf's wing loading much higher than the Spit's, with all the disadvantages it brings.
Once the Spit got the cannon, it steadily held the edge on the Bf. Especially the late and heavily overmotorised Bf-variants suffered badly from the higher powerplant and armament weight and other effects.

I imagine the 4.10 to be the last or one of the last Il2 releases. This sabotage work on the Spit FM seems bent to leave a similarily bad aftertaste in our mouths like on many other occassions of plane FM 'improvements' during the 10 year long history of the game. One weak point of this game surfaces again and again, this time to put the period to the Il2FB story. It's creators couldn't care less about the truth.

[fruitbat]

1, its not as bad as you make out, lateral instability is the only problem.

2, wait until the fix patch. it address the lateral instability, and all is is good in the world again.

[PE_Tihi]

1, its not as bad as you make out, lateral instability is the only problem.

2, wait until the fix patch. it address the lateral instability, and all is is good in the world again.

Well, try climbing vertically until you reach something like 100 km/h, then you 'll see what happens. And mind you, it is exactly at these stall speeds that the Bf behaves very well. It should, too; that is what the HP slats are for.

In 4.09 I used 300 m convergence for the Spit. Can't hit a thing at 250m in 4.10.

You say it s not that bad, lateral stabillity being the only problem. The stability, especially lateral is the worst kind of problem a plane can have.

There is another problem, too; the plane has a strong nose up trim. If you trim it out, you wont have the full up elevator for a narrow turn. I didnt even mention it.

[Fenrir]

There is another problem, too; the plane has a strong nose up trim. If you trim it out, you wont have the full up elevator for a narrow turn. I didnt even mention it.

You clearly do not fully grasp the nature of trim.

It does, in NO way, WHATSOEVER, increase ability to turn. It does not give more elevator throw. It does not make them more effective. It will only ever alter the stick zero-force point.

I realise Il-2s implementation of this is not great, however, a competent pilot will trim as he fights, and pre-empt situations. I suggest you start flying the P-38 to learn how to do that effectively.

[fruitbat]

Well, try climbing vertically until you reach something like 100 km/h, then you 'll see what happens. And mind you, it is exactly at these stall speeds that the Bf behaves very well. It should, too; that is what the HP slats are for.

In 4.09 I used 300 m convergence for the Spit. Can't hit a thing at 250m in 4.10.

You say it s not that bad, lateral stabillity being the only problem. The stability, especially lateral is the worst kind of problem a plane can have.

There is another problem, too; the plane has a strong nose up trim. If you trim it out, you wont have the full up elevator for a narrow turn. I didnt even mention it.

Did you actually even read what i said before you spouted back off.

lateral been fixed in the upcoming fix patch.

+1 on you clearly don't know what trim does.

also, your convergence is to far out. 200m is much better.

[TheDawg]

EASY FIX!
For to put Russian Star on spitfire, all well for fly then!

[PE_Tihi]

You clearly do not fully grasp the nature of trim.

It does, in NO way, WHATSOEVER, increase ability to turn. It does not give more elevator throw. It does not make them more effective. It will only ever alter the stick zero-force point.

I realise Il-2s implementation of this is not great, however, a competent pilot will trim as he fights, and pre-empt situations. I suggest you start flying the P-38 to learn how to do that effectively.

I bought a X52 more than 3 years ago. The stick has non-contact sensors on the main axes. That makes the use of exponential output tables unnecessary. I use the 10, 20, 30... 100 - linear output.
I found out very soon after that, the trimming is no longer indispensable. Stick forces on a X52 are quite a bit lower than on a P38, you ll agree. Once the jerky character of the exponential output has been removed, I didnt feel a real need for trim. Other, more energy sensitive friends of mine still do.

Trim tabs DO influence the control surface effect in real life, too. Take a look at their picture somewhere; deflecting the control surface, they deflect the airstream in the oposite direction slightly. And more, the trimming has a price in drag, too- no matter if you do it with a tab or the stick. ( It s more with the stick, cause your hand not so steady, etc)

As for the game-in my experience trimming does reduce the maximum throw of a control, even if that should not be so. A plane I always trim is the Japanese Ki43- it has a strong nose up tendency, too. Trimming the nose down reduces the maximum upward throw of the elevatror strongly. Shouldn't be like that, but it is.

All that said- the upward trim is a minor problem, compared to the stability of the 4.10 Spit.

[PE_Tihi]

Did you actually even read what i said before you spouted back off.

lateral been fixed in the upcoming fix patch.

+1 on you clearly don't know what trim does.

also, your convergence is to far out. 200m is much better.

I certainly read the two sentences you wrote. And I red the 82 items of the list of fixes for the patch. Found no mention of the spit stabillity problem.

From your other forum posts, I suspect you confuse the lateral trim and lateral stability issues here. Lateral (pitch) trim issue is unpleasant only, pushing the nose up all the time. Pitch and yaw stabillity makes the plane wallow around, on the other hand. As for the trim and what it does, I certainly know that better than writing on this forum demands.

As for my convergence ranges-I certainly do not put them on the distance where I cannot hit. On the Tempest it is even 380 m. And am a bad shot compared to some I know :)

[PE_Tihi]

EASY FIX!
For to put Russian Star on spitfire, all well for fly then!

Well, I simply take a I16; comes with a star painted on, you know :) It s real fun to fly, i love it:) It rolls like lightning, and.. even climbs better then 109F4:) Actually, very few F4 survive an encounter :)

[swiss]

Stick forces on a X52 are quite a bit lower than on a P38,

Huh?
First is a joystick, second a plane.
To simulate the forces you just reduce the output(f.i. 25 when it's actually 100).
Maybe I didn't get your point.


As for the game-in my experience trimming does reduce the maximum throw of a control, even if that should not be so

No? It shouldn't?

Please, feel free to explain how this works in RL.

[JtD]

"The characteristics of the control free lateral oscillation were determined by trimming the airplane for steady flights and then deflecting the rudder and releasing the controls. Records were taken of the subsequent variations of sideslip angle. The measurements were made in the curising condition at 125 and 200 miles per hour. The damping of the oscillation satisfactory met the requirement of reference 1. At 200 miles per hours, one oscillation and at 125 miles per hours 1.5 oscillations were required for the motion to damp to one-half amplitude."

Taken from NACA wartime report "Measurements of the flying qualities of a Supermaring VA airplane". Feel free to compare to in game.

If real life reference is not your point, I'd recommend you go to the difficulty panel and switch off torque effects.

[PE_Tihi]

Huh?
First is a joystick, second a plane.
To simulate the forces you just reduce the output(f.i. 25 when it's actually 100).
Maybe I didn't get your point.



No? It shouldn't?

Please, feel free to explain how this works in RL.

The aim of the trim controls is to relieve the pilot of pulling or pushing the stick with a constant force all the time; that can be tiring. Even the joystick forces can be tiring if you got to hold it quite far away from its neutral position. Among other things, this high constant force makes the hand control the stick in an imprecise manner, with the flight curve getting wavy.

That has been exactly the case using the exponential control curves the game offers for the potentiometer sticks. These are intended to deal with the 'noise' problem of the potentiometers. Namely, in the vicinity of the neutral, the noise can be stronger than the stick signal, twitching the plane and making it shudder all the time. If you reduce the stick output in the zone near to the neutral point, you reduce this shuddering - and farther away the noise effect is less noticeable.

That was the ratio behind the stick output tables of the IL2. Still, using them had several disadvantages; among them - you had to swing your stick far out to get a strong control output. That means, if you wanted to climb constantly, for example, you had to push the stick hard back; moreover, reacting exponentially, the stick output would start growing steeply with each millimeter you pulled, making the precise control impossible; your climb curve looked like a wave.

So the the trim controlls in the Il2 are really necessary if you are using the potentiometer stick and the exponential output curve it needs. Or if you fly any of the pronounced energy fighters like the P38 and don't want to throw away an ounce of energy. For the lesser mortals like me with a hall sensor stick- the hand alone gives a control that is precise enough in most cases.

That is what I meant, and I hope i could explain it, too; if not, do feel free to ask, please.

[Falke]

PE_Tihi - There is another problem, too; the plane has a strong nose up trim. If you trim it out, you wont have the full up elevator for a narrow turn. I didnt even mention it.

So do the 109's

[PE_Tihi]

Huh?
First is a joystick, second a plane.
To simulate the forces you just reduce the output(f.i. 25 when it's actually 100).
Maybe I didn't get your point.



No? It shouldn't?

Please, feel free to explain how this works in RL.

I see now I answered only a part of your questions. What you mean is the output reduction to simulate the growing stick forces at high speeds; this cannot be done by the stick output table, it is done by the game code, dynamically, according to the plane speed. (No sense in reducing it at the stick, to be in force all the time irrespective of the plane speed)

Trim surfaces on the WWII planes looked like small 'rudders on a rudder', small control surfaces that would offset the main control surface slightly from its neutral line. Trim surface had to go down a bit to push the elevator up into a climb position. It ll be clear to you , that the maximum control moment of the elevator would be slightly reduced in it's extreme upward (climb) position, trimming surface deflecting the air-stream in the 'wrong', downward direction slightly.
So , if you trim 'UP', the effect of the elevator in the extreme upwards position would be slightly reduced.
It is more or less opposite in IL2, where trimming the elevator DOWN, for example, reduces the effectiveness of the upwards elevator, unless you pull it to the really extreme position- and nobody ever does that actually.
To really simulate the trim, the stick should move slightly as you apply it, hands off. As you see, that is impossible to recreate exactly.
Take a look at the plane elevators on ground in the game, put it to climb position and use the trim. On a real plane the elevator and the stick move always together. In any position except the extreme one, the trimmed elevator in-game is some degrees off from where the stick says it should be. As the elevator nears its extreme throw, the game has to put these two positions together.

[PE_Tihi]

PE_Tihi - There is another problem, too; the plane has a strong nose up trim. If you trim it out, you wont have the full up elevator for a narrow turn. I didnt even mention it.

So do the 109's

Any plane pushes its nose slightly up when you open the throttle, that's normal, Bf does it too. I fly the Bf quite a lot. And if you dont know what am I talking about here, then you do not fly the Spit very much.

[PE_Tihi]

"The characteristics of the control free lateral oscillation were determined by trimming the airplane for steady flights and then deflecting the rudder and releasing the controls. Records were taken of the subsequent variations of sideslip angle. The measurements were made in the curising condition at 125 and 200 miles per hour. The damping of the oscillation satisfactory met the requirement of reference 1. At 200 miles per hours, one oscillation and at 125 miles per hours 1.5 oscillations were required for the motion to damp to one-half amplitude."

Taken from NACA wartime report "Measurements of the flying qualities of a Supermaring VA airplane". Feel free to compare to in game.

If real life reference is not your point, I'd recommend you go to the difficulty panel and switch off torque effects.

This report is not about torque effects but about the static stability about the vertical (yaw) axis.
If you want lower damping so that the planes get nastier to fly and aim, please do apply that to ALL of them, AND NOT THE SPIT ONLY. I am just trying to imagine the general outcry in such a case.
Now, you can feel free to compare all the other planes to the NACA report. Or do you think the Spit was an especially unstable and unpleasant plane?

[PE_Tihi]

Please, whoever writes expecting my answer, do spare me the bs of the local senior member kind here.

[BadAim]

Thi, The main problem is that your raving about what is at worst a bug like it's something that matters. It's not. Then you accuse the developer of doing this or that to ruin your favorite plane on purpose. That's the stupidest bloody thing I've ever heard of. I really can't believe reasonable people are wasting their valuable time trying to explain anything to you.

If you have an issue with something, bring it up like an adult, air your grievance like an adult, then move the hell on like an adult.

You can call me a fanboi all you want, but it pisses me off when I see people that I respect and who work their butts of (often for free) to provide us a passtime abused like this.

No one is saying that you shouldn't say your piece, just that you should try showing a modicum of respect. Is respect that out of style?

Alternatively you can go make your own bloody flight sim and fly it by yourself. This also goes for all the rest of your whining buddies.

To the ignore list with you!

[JtD]

Torque effect is what is giving you the instability you can't deal with, so if you switch it off, you can stop whining.

The NACA report is not about the static stability. Damped Oscillations are not static.

Why would it be useful to compare all planes to the Spitfire NACA report?

If you have the resources to research, check and if necessary reprogram lateral stability for all planes currently present, I'm sure TD would be more than glad to have you among them.

[PE_Tihi]

Thi, The main problem is that your raving about what is at worst a bug like it's something that matters. It's not. Then you accuse the developer of doing this or that to ruin your favorite plane on purpose. That's the stupidest bloody thing I've ever heard of. I really can't believe reasonable people are wasting their valuable time trying to explain anything to you.

If you have an issue with something, bring it up like an adult, air your grievance like an adult, then move the hell on like an adult.

You can call me a fanboi all you want, but it pisses me off when I see people that I respect and who work their butts of (often for free) to provide us a passtime abused like this.

No one is saying that you shouldn't say your piece, just that you should try showing a modicum of respect. Is respect that out of style?

Alternatively you can go make your own bloody flight sim and fly it by yourself. This also goes for all the rest of your whining buddies.

To the ignore list with you!

I ll make an exception of answering to another senior member bs. Dear senior member, the amount of work and creativity that has flown into this game EVEN BEFORE DT CAME TO EXISTENCE is enormous. To my eyes, this could never justify the outright lying of Mr Maddox about the plane performances. Making the Spit the only plane with quite unpleasant flying qualities is simply another dishonesty OF THE SAME KIND, with all the due respect for the enormous work DT has done. So don't turn to me. I simply don't mince words, that s all.

[PE_Tihi]

Torque effect is what is giving you the instability you can't deal with, so if you switch it off, you can stop whining.

The NACA report is not about the static stability. Damped Oscillations are not static.

Why would it be useful to compare all planes to the Spitfire NACA report?

If you have the resources to research, check and if necessary reprogram lateral stability for all planes currently present, I'm sure TD would be more than glad to have you among them.

I am not going to explain the difference between the static and dynamic stability to you here. I repeat , the NACA report is on the static stability about the yaw axis. The torque is only a complicating factor; what has been changed is the stabillity and damping factors and not the torque.
It is only the Spitfire and the Spitfire only to get this kind of a flight model with the low damping factors about the vertical and lateral axes ( yaw and pitch)
Even if we proclaim these values realistic, all the other planes fly with the much stronger damping factors. Now, do you really beleive the Spitfire had by far the least static stability and most unpleasant flying qualities of all the WWII fighters?

[swiss]

Trim surfaces on the WWII planes looked like small 'rudders on a rudder', small control surfaces that would offset the main control surface slightly from its neutral line. Trim surface had to go down a bit to push the elevator up into a climb position. It ll be clear to you , that the maximum control moment of the elevator would be slightly reduced in it's extreme upward (climb) position, trimming surface deflecting the air-stream in the 'wrong', downward direction slightly.
So , if you trim 'UP', the effect of the elevator in the extreme upwards position would be slightly reduced.


Aha, so it does influence throw.
Funny you wrote:
As for the game-in my experience trimming does reduce the maximum throw of a control, even if that should not be so

;)
Btw: not all planes had trim ruders, the 109/190 had some sheet metal which bent on the ground afaik.




It is more or less opposite in IL2, where trimming the elevator DOWN, for example, reduces the effectiveness of the upwards elevator, unless you pull it to the really extreme position- and nobody ever does that actually.

I'll have to check that, but...
As much as I hate to say it, I think you got a valid(your only one imho) point there.
It would also explain why using trim in IL2 reduces your turn radius.
(hear say - if it really does, that should be on the top of fixes)

[TheGrunch]

That is maybe because in one of the later patches the game's stick deflection model was changed to a force based rather than simply an absolute control deflection based one? Not sure.

[Falke]

Belligerent

[fruitbat]

i've already told you that what your arguing about is fixed in the bug fix patch.

so this is largely a waste of time, but hey ho.

[FS~Phat]

Some interesting facts about known instability of spitfire mk V in 1942 due to field operations ignoring advice about careful placement of equipment in the field. It appears the instability was "cured" by some elevator modifications and some sort of mass balancer changes. But a significant number of spits were officially documented as "dangerously unstable"...

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/bf-109-vs-spitfire-3406-22.html

I love both the spit and 109 and flew the 109 almost exclusively for the first 3-4 years of my 10years with IL2. I have to say I was one to recently whinge about the latest FM changes but after a lot more research have come to the conclusion that TD's intent is admirable to replicate the documented "real life" not theoretical flight behaviour of the spit.

I do wonder though if they may have over done it, as it would appear these instability issues were well documented and addressed before the end of 1942.

I would like TD to consider some compromise on the stability changes in the new patch in favour of more stability as the problems did indeed exist if only for a year or so. Or is there some other way to allow us to compensate in the weapon/fuel loadout screen to gain more stability?

I do still think the elevator trim is overcooked a little too, as it definetly limits the ability to pull best possible radius turns if trimmed for level flight.

Thanks for listening!

FS~Phat

[JtD]

I am not going to explain the difference between the static and dynamic stability to you here. I repeat , the NACA report is on the static stability about the yaw axis.
OK, whatever - and you're complaining about what?
The torque is only a complicating factor; what has been changed is the stabillity and damping factors and not the torque.
Produce a test, show the results.
It is only the Spitfire and the Spitfire only to get this kind of a flight model with the low damping factors about the vertical and lateral axes ( yaw and pitch)
OK, so how much lower is the damping about the vertical and lateral axis on the Spitfire than say on a P-51?
Even if we proclaim these values realistic, all the other planes fly with the much stronger damping factors. Now, do you really beleive the Spitfire had by far the least static stability and most unpleasant flying qualities of all the WWII fighters?
If the Spitfire is correct and all other planes are wrong, all other planes should be fixed and not the Spitfire be porked. As I've said before, if you have the resources to research and check all planes and make the necessary changes, you're effort would certainly be welcome.

[BENGALtiger]

You clearly do not fully grasp the nature of trim.

It does, in NO way, WHATSOEVER, increase ability to turn. It does not give more elevator throw. It does not make them more effective. It will only ever alter the stick zero-force point.

I realise Il-2s implementation of this is not great, however, a competent pilot will trim as he fights, and pre-empt situations. I suggest you start flying the P-38 to learn how to do that effectively.


It is not 100% true that trim "in NO way, WHATSOEVER, increase ability to turn". You seem to believe this yourself when you mention the P38. By using elevator trim you can increase your ability to turn, as you won't have to fight as much compression/weight. You kind of contradicted yourself that post.

[engarde]

if you could see me, i'd have my hand over my face and my elbow on the desk.

so very often the It Doesnt Fly Like I Think It Should posts.

i'll say yet again, you have no freakin idea how the real spit is supposed to fly.

maybe it flew properly 25 Constant Clueless Complainer born revisions ago, and due to the fact you dont know hows its supposed to fly, you had no idea.

and so you and your pot-O-gold passed like ships in the night.

yet now you somehow are a significant enough authority to bleat on about control surfaces and yaw and lateral this and leaf that.....

ill bet that NONE, read that again NONE, of the aircraft in the il2 sims fly "liked theyre supposed to" largely due to the devs paying too much attention to the sounds of clueless crying?

after all, armchair pilots have all the opinion in the world and absolutely none of the stuff that really matters: REAL FLIGHT EXPERIENCE ON THE ACTUAL TYPE.

yet again, the circle begins.....

[Romanator21]

It is not 100% true that trim "in NO way, WHATSOEVER, increase ability to turn". You seem to believe this yourself when you mention the P38. By using elevator trim you can increase your ability to turn, as you won't have to fight as much compression/weight. You kind of contradicted yourself that post.

I think he means to say that trim functions differently in reality than it does in the game.

@engarde - I was a bit like you at one point, but I learned that debate is the best thing we can do to get closer to the truth. Now, WWII vets aren't exactly in the flight sim programming department now-a-days, so you can't be too bitter about speculation. The best source we have is documentation and personal accounts, and as long as debate revolves around these and not mud-slinging, a fair amount of understanding can be attained.

And if these threads bug you, don't look, and for God's sake, don't bother posting in them.

[KG26_Alpha]

Ok I think you are all done here :)